60
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Bayesian inference for psychology. Part II: Example applications with JASP

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Bayesian hypothesis testing presents an attractive alternative to p value hypothesis testing. Part I of this series outlined several advantages of Bayesian hypothesis testing, including the ability to quantify evidence and the ability to monitor and update this evidence as data come in, without the need to know the intention with which the data were collected. Despite these and other practical advantages, Bayesian hypothesis tests are still reported relatively rarely. An important impediment to the widespread adoption of Bayesian tests is arguably the lack of user-friendly software for the run-of-the-mill statistical problems that confront psychologists for the analysis of almost every experiment: the t-test, ANOVA, correlation, regression, and contingency tables. In Part II of this series we introduce JASP ( http://www.jasp-stats.org), an open-source, cross-platform, user-friendly graphical software package that allows users to carry out Bayesian hypothesis tests for standard statistical problems. JASP is based in part on the Bayesian analyses implemented in Morey and Rouder’s BayesFactor package for R. Armed with JASP, the practical advantages of Bayesian hypothesis testing are only a mouse click away.

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book: not found

          Probability Theory

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Bayesian Versus Orthodox Statistics: Which Side Are You On?

            Researchers are often confused about what can be inferred from significance tests. One problem occurs when people apply Bayesian intuitions to significance testing-two approaches that must be firmly separated. This article presents some common situations in which the approaches come to different conclusions; you can see where your intuitions initially lie. The situations include multiple testing, deciding when to stop running participants, and when a theory was thought of relative to finding out results. The interpretation of nonsignificant results has also been persistently problematic in a way that Bayesian inference can clarify. The Bayesian and orthodox approaches are placed in the context of different notions of rationality, and I accuse myself and others as having been irrational in the way we have been using statistics on a key notion of rationality. The reader is shown how to apply Bayesian inference in practice, using free online software, to allow more coherent inferences from data.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Revised standards for statistical evidence.

              Recent advances in Bayesian hypothesis testing have led to the development of uniformly most powerful Bayesian tests, which represent an objective, default class of Bayesian hypothesis tests that have the same rejection regions as classical significance tests. Based on the correspondence between these two classes of tests, it is possible to equate the size of classical hypothesis tests with evidence thresholds in Bayesian tests, and to equate P values with Bayes factors. An examination of these connections suggest that recent concerns over the lack of reproducibility of scientific studies can be attributed largely to the conduct of significance tests at unjustifiably high levels of significance. To correct this problem, evidence thresholds required for the declaration of a significant finding should be increased to 25-50:1, and to 100-200:1 for the declaration of a highly significant finding. In terms of classical hypothesis tests, these evidence standards mandate the conduct of tests at the 0.005 or 0.001 level of significance.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                EJ.Wagenmakers@gmail.com
                Journal
                Psychon Bull Rev
                Psychon Bull Rev
                Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
                Springer US (New York )
                1069-9384
                1531-5320
                6 July 2017
                6 July 2017
                2018
                : 25
                : 1
                : 58-76
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000000084992262, GRID grid.7177.6, Department of Psychological Methods, , University of Amsterdam, ; Nieuwe Achtergracht 129-B, 1018 VZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0001 1015 3164, GRID grid.418391.6, Birla Institute of Technology and Science, ; Pilani, India
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2194 0956, GRID grid.10267.32, Masaryk University, ; Brno, Czech Republic
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0668 7243, GRID grid.266093.8, University of California at Irvine, ; Irvine, CA USA
                [5 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2162 3504, GRID grid.134936.a, University of Missouri, ; Columbia, MO USA
                [6 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0807 5670, GRID grid.5600.3, Cardiff University, ; Cardiff, UK
                Article
                1323
                10.3758/s13423-017-1323-7
                5862926
                28685272
                60c15796-4a9e-4e03-b011-0bd4227419d5
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

                History
                Funding
                Funded by: University of Amsterdam
                Categories
                Brief Report
                Custom metadata
                © Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                hypothesis test,statistical evidence,bayes factor,posterior distribution

                Comments

                Comment on this article